Meaning of 2 Cor 5:21 [moved from Ethics]

[ToBeBlessed]

Since Jesus was sinless, obviously it wasn't a sin to send the demons into the swine.

I don't see this as a really pressing question of the bible. Good luck in your search for answers.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Since Jesus was sinless, obviously it wasn't a sin to send the demons into the swine.

I don't see this as a really pressing question of the bible. Good luck in your search for answers.

So you essentially concede the debate by walking away.

Your answer by the way, was the classic logical fallacy of confirming the consequent.

The problem is you are assuming that the statement "Jesus was sinless" is true and using it to determine that none of His action recorded in the Bible are sins. Unfortunately it was those actions, recorded or not, that qualify Him as the sacrifice, according to Paul.
So, according to the Bible, it would not be a sin for your neighbor to set into motion circumstances that he knows would result in the destruction of your automobile or your house. Right?

Either that or what qualified as a sin for Jesus when he was on Earth is different than what qualifies as a sin for humans.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

So you essentially concede the debate by walking away.

Your answer by the way, was the classic logical fallacy of confirming the consequent.

The problem is you are assuming that the statement "Jesus was sinless" is true and using it to determine that none of His action recorded in the Bible are sins. Unfortunately it was those actions, recorded or not, that qualify Him as the sacrifice, according to Paul.
So, according to the Bible, it would not be a sin for your neighbor to set into motion circumstances that he knows would result in the destruction of your automobile or your house. Right?

Either that or what qualified as a sin for Jesus when he was on Earth is different than what qualifies as a sin for humans.

I never answered as a contention or to debate with you. You see it as a sin and I do not. I am not here to defend my faith. Why not pray and ask God for the answer?

 

[DerelictJunction]

I never answered as a contention or to debate with you. You see it as a sin and I do not.

The difference is that I can support my position that it is a sin using the laws of Moses and Jesus' actions as recorded in the Bible. You cannot so your faith is not Biblically based.

I am not here to defend my faith.

Good thing.

Why not pray and ask God for the answer?

I have done that before with the same result time after time....nothing. Hence my transition to the agnostic belief, or lack thereof.

 

[Inkachu]

Well, human beings are GOD'S also. He made them. He rules creation. So, by your logic, Jesus could have laid waste to the entire land of Palestine, killing every man, woman and child, and still not have sinned. Your logic makes the statement about Jesus being sinless have no meaning at all because He could do anything and not be sinning.

Mankind screwed up and brought death and destruction into God's perfect world. So, yes, He could have wiped us all out and not been in the wrong.

This wasn't about the pigs except that they were someone else's property. It was about the person whose property was destroyed. If I were to destroy your automobile, would I have sinned?

You're not God. You didn't create my car. God created those pigs. They belong to Him.

If you lived in Jesus' time, would it be a sin for Him to destroy your cart and oxen?

Of course not. He made me, He made my oxen, we belong to Him. You're trying to make God into some petty, impulsive entity who throws random destruction around without rhyme or reason. That's not who He is.

It looks to me that if a human had done what Jesus did, it would be considered a sin.

Because we're humans, not gods.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Mankind screwed up and brought death and destruction into God's perfect world. So, yes, He could have wiped us all out and not been in the wrong.

Aside from the fact that the whole Garden of Eden thing looks like a setup to ensure that man "sinned", man's failure was not the point of the discussion. What Paul meant when he wrote 2 Cor 5:21, is the point. Jesus was sinless and thus is the proper sacrifice, means nothing if Jesus could do anything at all and not sin.

You're not God. You didn't create my car. God created those pigs. They belong to Him.

You are making my point for me. When Jesus was on Earth as a human, He could not sin because any action, no matter how horrifying or painful to other humans is excused by the fact that He is God.

Of course not. He made me, He made my oxen, we belong to Him. You're trying to make God into some petty, impulsive entity who throws random destruction around without rhyme or reason. That's not who He is.

Frankly, I don't see Him as anything at all; I'm agnostic. However, the Bible makes claims that He is subject to many of the same shortcomings that we humans have....jealousy, rage, poor planning, vengeance, ....etc.

Because we're humans, not gods.

Which you are using to give Jesus a pass to do whatever He wanted during His time on Earth, despite those actions being sins if done by humans.
The result of this is that Jesus couldn't help being sinless because no action performed by Him could be labeled as a sin. His qualification as a "sinless" sacrifice is meaningless.

 

[dac2015]

Aside from the fact that the whole Garden of Eden thing looks like a setup to ensure that man "sinned", man's failure was not the point of the discussion. What Paul meant when he wrote 2 Cor 5:21, is the point. Jesus was sinless and thus is the proper sacrifice, means nothing if Jesus could do anything at all and not sin. You are making my point for me. When Jesus was on Earth as a human, He could not sin because any action, no matter how horrifying or painful to other humans is excused by the fact that He is God. Frankly, I don't see Him as anything at all; I'm agnostic. However, the Bible makes claims that He is subject to many of the same shortcomings that we humans have....jealousy, rage, poor planning, vengeance, ....etc. Which you are using to give Jesus a pass to do whatever He wanted during His time on Earth, despite those actions being sins if done by humans. The result of this is that Jesus couldn't help being sinless because no action performed by Him could be labeled as a sin. His qualification as a "sinless" sacrifice is meaningless.

How exactly is that a sin for Jesus to have done that??

 

[quatona]

Since Jesus was sinless, obviously it wasn't a sin to send the demons into the swine.

I´ll keep this explanation in case I need to illustrate "circular logic".

 

[CabVet]

I´ll keep this explanation in case I need to illustrate "circular logic".

Why? It is Biblical.

 

[Inkachu]

Aside from the fact that the whole Garden of Eden thing looks like a setup to ensure that man "sinned", man's failure was not the point of the discussion. What Paul meant when he wrote 2 Cor 5:21, is the point. Jesus was sinless and thus is the proper sacrifice, means nothing if Jesus could do anything at all and not sin.
You are making my point for me. When Jesus was on Earth as a human, He could not sin because any action, no matter how horrifying or painful to other humans is excused by the fact that He is God.
Frankly, I don't see Him as anything at all; I'm agnostic. However, the Bible makes claims that He is subject to many of the same shortcomings that we humans have....jealousy, rage, poor planning, vengeance, ....etc.
Which you are using to give Jesus a pass to do whatever He wanted during His time on Earth, despite those actions being sins if done by humans.
The result of this is that Jesus couldn't help being sinless because no action performed by Him could be labeled as a sin. His qualification as a "sinless" sacrifice is meaningless.

Okay.

 

[DerelictJunction]

How exactly is that a sin for Jesus to have done that??

Since your question doesn't refer directly to what you have quoted, I must ask what action you are referring to.
If it is about sending demons into swine, causing their destruction, I am concerned that He caused the destruction of another human's property, which I believe is a sin.

If it is about the claim by another poster that Jesus is God so He could do anything and it would not be a sin. My problem with that point of view is that it makes the claim in 2 Cor 5:21 meaningless.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, human beings are GOD'S also. He made them. He rules creation. So, by your logic, Jesus could have laid waste to the entire land of Palestine, killing every man, woman and child, and still not have sinned. Your logic makes the statement about Jesus being sinless have no meaning at all because He could do anything and not be sinning.
This wasn't about the pigs except that they were someone else's property. It was about the person whose property was destroyed. If I were to destroy your automobile, would I have sinned?
If you lived in Jesus' time, would it be a sin for Him to destroy your cart and oxen?
It looks to me that if a human had done what Jesus did, it would be considered a sin.

It appears that what you're actually seeking is a reason to accuse Jesus of sin.

 

[RDKirk]

Since your question doesn't refer directly to what you have quoted, I must ask what action you are referring to.
If it is about sending demons into swine, causing their destruction, I am concerned that He caused the destruction of another human's property, which I believe is a sin.

If it is about the claim by another poster that Jesus is God so He could do anything and it would not be a sin. My problem with that point of view is that it makes the claim in 2 Cor 5:21 meaningless.

To be more specific, Jesus the man is the Son (the physical eicon of God (Colossians 1), who is God but is not everything that God is, and a Windows icon provides a useful metaphor), but Jesus is not the Father (the "Prime Cause"). To be sinless means that Jesus as the Son was fully compliant with the Father.

It is difficult for many Western Christians to embrace the fact that Christian morality relies on God as the Prime Cause of our morality. Our morality is not "objective" because God is not an object, He is the Subject, and our morality is subjective to Him.

God is not obligated to adhere to a morality that is objective to Him--such a thing would be God's god. Our morality is what He is, what He does, and what He commands.

As I said, that's difficult for many Western Christians to embrace because it has awesome ramifications, but it has been expressed in this thread. Jesus had a perfect moral right to use those pigs as He saw fit to carry out His mission because

The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all it contains, You have founded them. -- Psalm 89

 

[DerelictJunction]

It appears that what you're actually seeking is a reason to accuse Jesus of sin.

No. I am trying to understand how He can be considered a sinless sacrifice when the Bible shows that He clearly sinned if going by human standards.
I don't have to accuse Jesus of sin. The Bible does that for me.

 

[RDKirk]

No. I am trying to understand how He can be considered a sinless sacrifice when the Bible shows that He clearly sinned if going by human standards.
I don't have to accuse Jesus of sin. The Bible does that for me.

"There you have it, gentlemen, what more evidence do we need? Judas, thank you for the victim. Stay awhile and you'll see it bleed!" -- "Jesus Christ: Superstar"

 

[DerelictJunction]

God is not obligated to adhere to a morality that is objective to Him--such a thing would be God's god. Our morality is what He is, what He does, and what He commands.

As I said, that's difficult for many Western Christians to embrace because it has awesome ramifications, but it has been expressed in this thread. Jesus had a perfect moral right to use those pigs as He saw fit to carry out His mission because

The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all it contains, You have founded them. -- Psalm 89

Then Jesus, while He was on Earth, could have killed every man woman and child in the Roman Empire except Palestine, taken all the money from all the merchants in Palestine, forcibly had sex with all the men and women in Jerusalem, then told everyone that He didn't do it, and He still would not have committed a sin? That is what your statement of His right to use and destroy someone else's property (pigs) implies.

If it is true that, even though it would be a sin for a human, He had that perfect moral right to use those pigs as He saw fit to carry out His mission, then what does 2 Cor 5:21 really mean?
If He could not sin no matter what action He took, what makes it so special for Him to be "sinless".
He did not have to exercise any self control because it was impossible for Him to sin. Nothing he did, no matter how horrendous from the point of view of humans, would ever be called a sin.

 

[DerelictJunction]

"There you have it, gentlemen, what more evidence do we need? Judas, thank you for the victim. Stay awhile and you'll see it bleed!" -- "Jesus Christ: Superstar"

Nice vilification of me.
I see you don't classify any of His actions as sin, despite the fact that if those same actions had been committed by Peter or Mary Magdalene it would be a sin.

 

[RDKirk]

Then Jesus, while He was on Earth, could have killed every man woman and child in the Roman Empire except Palestine, taken all the money from all the merchants in Palestine, forcibly had sex with all the men and women in Jerusalem, then told everyone that He didn't do it, and He still would not have committed a sin? That is what your statement of His right to use and destroy someone else's property (pigs) implies.

If it is true that, even though it would be a sin for a human, He had that perfect moral right to use those pigs as He saw fit to carry out His mission, then what does 2 Cor 5:21 really mean?
If He could not sin no matter what action He took, what makes it so special for Him to be "sinless".
He did not have to exercise any self control because it was impossible for Him to sin. Nothing he did, no matter how horrendous from the point of view of humans, would ever be called a sin.

And?

What defines "sin?" Sin is purely a theological concept. Go through all the ethics of the ancient Greeks, for instance, and you don't find "sin."

"Sin" is not synonomous with "wrong" in ethics, "sin" is a concept that dependent on a moral authority who defines subjectively what is against his moral dictates and establishes consequences according to his own will.

If anything, that is what the OT displays to us, even though we have no reason to expect Jesus to command us to such acts.

 

[DerelictJunction]

And?

What defines "sin?" Sin is purely a theological concept. Go through all the ethics of the ancient Greeks, for instance, and you don't find "sin."

"Sin" is not synonomous with "wrong" in ethics, "sin" is a concept that dependent on a moral authority who defines subjectively what is against his moral dictates and establishes consequences according to his own will.

If anything, that is what the OT displays to us, even though we have no reason to expect Jesus to command us to such acts.

Then you agree that 2 Cor 5:21 is rather meaningless from a human perspective.

You went even further to say that if God told you to kill your entire family that you would do it and not have sinned.

Since God defines what is sin, how do you know He is not lying to you when He says you are saved from eternal punishment. If He lies, it is not a sin or wrong because He says so. You can say, "Because the Bible tells me so" but that doesn't really help you. The Bible writers were inspired by the same God that you claim can lie and not have sinned. He could put lies in the Bible and still not have sinned.

 

[RDKirk]

Then you agree that 2 Cor 5:21 is rather meaningless from a human perspective.

You went even further to say that if God told you to kill your entire family that you would do it and not have sinned.

Since God defines what is sin, how do you know He is not lying to you when He says you are saved from eternal punishment. If He lies, it is not a sin or wrong because He says so. You can say, "Because the Bible tells me so" but that doesn't really help you. The Bible writers were inspired by the same God that you claim can lie and not have sinned. He could put lies in the Bible and still not have sinned.

You know, I was in the military during the Cold War when at any time out of the blue the president could have ordered us to launch our nuclear weapons upon the Soviet Union.

That distant hypothetical possibility did not prevent me from carrying out my daily duties. I did not, nor did anyone I know, actually believe such a thing would happen...although we all realized it was not impossible.

Now, I don't know what particular ethical philosophy you claim as your own, but every ethical philosophy has its problems. For instance, a Utilitarian cannot truly know if a particular action that seems ethical at the moment won't have the opposite repercussion decades later...but he doesn't let that freeze him into being unable to make a utilitarian decision today.